THOMAS V C Vs. ACHAMMA THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused challenging the order dated 10th January, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 29856/2007.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for consideration are as follows: The writ petitioner is the wife of the appellant. With her mother she is stated to be a resident of Malampara in Thalapalam Village within the limits of Erattupetta Police Station. It appears, there are some domestic differences between the writ petitioner and her husband, the appellant herein since long and their married life has gone astray. In respect of an incident on 01/09/2007, it is stated that, as the writ petitioner was assaulted by her husband the accused, a criminal case in Crime No. 321 of 2007 of Erattupetta Police Station is registered. Originally, the offences against the accused were under S.450, 353, 354 and 395 IPC. However, according to the writ petitioner, even though these offences were clearly found by the jurisdictional police to have been committed by the accused, because of the undue influence used by the accused, the police have not taken up any effective investigation and in fact, according to the petitioner, they have registered a case for the offences only under S.498-A, 354 and 427 read with 34 IPC instead of under S.450, 353, 395 and 354 IPC. According to the petitioner, as the husband/accused is very influential, the police may not conduct an honest investigation and hence she approached this Court in the writ petition with the following prayers.

(3.) After issuance of the notice and objections filed by the State Investigating Agency, the matter was finally heard and by the impugned order, learned Single Judge observed that from the statements it appears that offences under S.363, 367, 384, 385 and 392 IPC though are made out, no attempt has been made by the investigating agency to include them in the final or additional report and as such, investigation has to be entrusted with another investigating agency, namely, Circle Inspector of Kottayam Sub Division. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam was directed to entrust the investigation of the case for the offences under S.363, 367, 384, 385 and 392 IPC to Circle Inspector of Police within the Kottayam Sub Division, instead of the jurisdictional police, Circle Inspector of Police, Erattupetta.